Aren't open forums great!
One guy knock anothers "facts" with his own "facts".
Look Carl, your right, flying more than 8 hours in a day in more fatiguing than less. So with that logic in mind, flying only 6 hours or 3 hours is even safer, as regarding fatigue. Take this to the logical extreme; the safest duty day is a day at home, on the front porch, falling a sleep (as needed) with a beer in hand.
While the FAA and every other organization with a "vested interest" in the NPRM will weigh in on fatigue, you can bet that pilots views, while uniquely situated to provide the best (in our humble opinion) view of fatigue, will only have a partial input into the rule. Just like negotiating a raise, buying a car, or deciding a vacation with your wife, compromise will ultimately be required to move the stats quo from where we are to where we want to be.
This may disturb purists that believe that science and our unique prospective should be the only views taking into consideration when changing flight and duty time regulations, it will not be.
This is a political flight, in which we are only one voice among many. By virtue of our position at the pointy end of the spear, we are the most qualified to render an opinion, but certainly not the only one with influence to do so.
If you want to argue that
no increase is flight time under any circumstances is permissible we will play right into the hands of the ATA, CAA, and and every other group who see pilots as a cost, safety as an expense, accidents as , "the cost of doing business".
ALPA, CALPA, APA, all and any groups representing pilots needs to make meaningful input into what can be changed in out flight and duty limitations.
Can a pilot departing in the AM, rested either from his home or a hotel, fly a duty day that, with certain restrictions (number of legs flown), exceeds 8 block hours? From my limited experience in "day" domestic flying, I would say yes. We should work to control how much and under what circumstances it does exceed 8 hours. If we throw a road bock in the way of
any change to 8 in 24, we will give our opponents the fodder to kill any changes, just as they did in 1995 when the FAA last proposed changes.
Don't let stubbornness to compromise allow this important effort to be undermined. There will be some give if we are to get an improved deal overall.